Agenda and minutes

Up to 15 minutes are allowed for public participation.  Participants are restricted to 3 minutes each.

There was no public participation at this stage of the meeting.

i)       Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 8 January 2020, previously circulated.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January 2020 were agreed as a true record, and signed by the Chairman.

Members may make any declarations of interest at this point but may also make them at any time during the course of the meeting.

Councillor Paul Howitt-Cowan declared an interest in application number 140077; he was the Ward Member for the application, and would stand down from the Planning Committee and speak against the application.

Note – the status of Neighbourhood Plans in the District may be found via this link

https://www.west-lindsey.gov.uk/my-services/planning-and-building/neighbourhood-planning/

The Planning Manager (Development Management) updated Committee with the following pieces of information:

·         Spridlington Neighbourhood Plan (NP) would form part of the development plan following its adoption at Full Council in January;

·         The referendum for the Sudbrooke NP would take place on 13 February;

·         Hemswell, Harpswell and Morton had all published initial drafts of NPs for consultation.

Members considered an application for 1no. dwelling, including the upgrade of access, private drive and new associated garage – a redesign of approved plot 2 under application number 135838.

The Chairman highlighted to all present that there had been a site visit on 15 January following the decision of the Planning Committee to take this course of action on 8 January.

There were no officer updates at the start of this item.

The first public speaker to the item was Councillor John Latham, from Glentworth Parish Council.  He raised the following points:

·         A full statement from the Parish Council had been included in the report prepared by West Lindsey District Council (WLDC) officers;

·         The Parish accepted that there was an extant planning consent, reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan endorsed some weeks ago;

·         The matters of views and vistas went to the heart of the plan.  The original application was for two dwellings; the house proposed was significantly larger.  The worry was over the scale, mass and dominance in the landscape of the proposed design;

·         The proposed design would stand out and be a significant structure;

·         The access road to the property was narrow; a larger road would mean more vehicles, and would cause a significant access problems;

·         The disposal of sewage and foul water remained a concern.

Note:   Councillor Ian Fleetwood reiterated his declaration from the January meeting; he had met the applicant, a Mrs Hazel Walker at a meeting prior to the January planning meeting, but this application had not been discussed.  Therefore Councillor Fleetwood felt able to take part in and vote on this item.

The second speaker was Mrs Hazel Walker, the applicant.  She raised the following points:

·         This was a revised application;

·         There were no new dwellings proposed, nor were there any other matters to be considered.  Access to the garage was the same as the previously granted application;

·         Sewage would not be discharged into the existing sewer;

·         There had been some confusion about the detached garage to the front of the property; it would be a domestic garage for vehicles.  There would be no workshop, commercial or otherwise;

·         The proposed property was large enough for five bedrooms, however the 5^th bedroom would be a home office, ideally located next to the ground floor shower room;

·         The enlarged plot size could accommodate the proposed dwelling comfortably.  The front of the property had sufficient parking and could accommodate the number of vehicles that would be using the property;

·         There was sufficient room for emergency vehicles to access the site, with enough turning space, which was a mandatory requirement under building regulations;

·         Dustbin lorries would not access the lane to the property; the bins would be wheeled to the end of the lane for collection;

·         Immediate neighbours to the property were satisfied with the design, as were WLDC Planning officers.  The previous design included white cladding, whereas this new design was brick and stone;

·         All trees and hedges were to remain as per the previous approval;

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Members considered an outline planning application to erect 5no. dwellings – all matters reserved at land adjacent to Fleets Road, Sturton by Stow LN1 2BU.

There were no officer updates to the report as printed.

The first speaker to this item was Councillor Gilbert from Sturton by Stow Parish Council.  She raised the following points:

·         The application was discussed at a meeting of Sturton by Stow Parish Council and was well attended; there was strong community rejection of this application;

·         Policy 2.4.1 paragraph 4 of the CLLP highlights the protection of agricultural land, along with the enhancement of biodiversity to allow people to access wildlife and the natural environment;

·         The site was bounded by hedgerows and trees; two of these have Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs);

·         The site was on a single track road with a blind bend, used by walkers, cyclists.  There was an access road to the recreation ground;

·         The footprint of the village would be extended to the east and open up the possibility for development on the east of site;

·         The proposed site was significantly higher; therefore there could be issues with new properties being able to see into neighbouring properties;

·         Fleets Road was seen by many as a valuable green escape enabling health and wellbeing of the residents.  There was no footpath; there had been a proposal from Lincolnshire Highways for a 1.8 metre wide footway, but this was no longer in the offing;

·         The Sturton by Stow NP had not been formally adopted; however the protection of trees and hedges was very important.  It had been proposed that a large portion of the hedge was to be removed.  However the draft NP stipulated that any development should not harm the character of the countryside;

·         There had been significant flooding issues in the village over a number of years.  This particular piece of land was not accessible for four or five days due to flood water in 2019;

·         A ‘high risk contour’ of flooding reaches within 85 metres of the site, as outlined by government departments.  There was a ‘low-risk contour’ that ran along the road adjacent to the site. 

Any development on site would contribute to flooding by removing the rainwater absorption area;

·         LP2.4.5 of the CLLP refers to climate change adaptation and flood risk.  It was paramount that the increased instances of flooding were managed.  Current foul water drainage was inadequate and there was no mention of how this would be managed within the development.  The Parish Council had received many complaints on this issue.

Note:   Councillor Ian Fleetwood informed everyone present that the next speaker, Oliver Fytche-Taylor was known to longer-standing Members of the Committee due to his previous employment at West Lindsey District Council; however this had no bearing on the decision made on the application by Committee.

The last speaker on this item was Oliver Fytche-Taylor, agent for the applicant.  He raised the following points:

·         The site was part of narrow agricultural land, which bound the site on three sides;

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Members considered application number 140254, an application for the erection of two storey and single storey extensions to the rear, including the removal of existing two storey elements, a resubmission of 139326 at The Poplars, 22 Main Street, Normanby by Spital, Market Rasen LN8 2HE.

There were no further officer updates to the printed report.

The first speaker on this application was Abigail Redmile, the applicant.  She raised the following points:

·         Plans have been extensively revised to address al legitimate planning concerns; planning officers feel that this adequately addressed the matter;

·         Neighbours have continuously objected to this application with concerns with dominance, light and privacy;

·         ‘Sun studies’ had been carried out to make sure that there was no additional shadowing compared to the existing structure.  The results were produced using industry standard software;

·         The 2.8 metre boundary wall along the rear northern boundary would have a far greater impact on light with the addition of a 45 degree angle of light passage;

·         Both neighbours’ concerns on privacy were not valid; the northern boundary windows were obscure and offered no view of Number 24.  The existing first floor overlooking window of the southern elevation offered no view of Number 20’s garden area.  All that was visible from this window was a parking area and boundary;

·         The current application accorded with all planning policies, and there was no planning reason for rejection of the application.

There were two objectors to the application, Julia Watson and Jane Sharman who shared the allotted time for speaking.  The following points were raised:

·         One of the ladies’ residences was bought for its quiet location and large private garden;

·         There were three main concerns; the proposed size of the extension and lack of privacy, the height and size of the proposed structure, and extra soil flow through an old ‘piggyback’ system in the rear garden;

·         WLDC had set a precedent when granting permission for a property directly behind one of the neighbours which included the condition related to obscured windows;

·         WLDC rejected the first proposal on this site which proposed building on three levels; this new proposal had not reduced the height or size of the structure in any significant way.  It was believed that the applicant’s requirements could be met with smaller dimensions;

·         By reducing the angle of the roofs and incorporating a different style of roof on the extension the building could be considered less imposing;

·         Proposed bedrooms 2 and 3 had two windows each; these were on ‘bright light aspects’ and could be adequately serviced by one window each.  The south facing window was not required;

·         Artist impressions were misleading as it showed the plot surrounded by trees;

·         A site visit would be appreciated to highlight the above concerns;

·         The incorrect officer plans show that the proposed two storey extension would extend back by more than 2 metres as opposed to the 1.2 metres stated in the planning report;

·         The officer’s report was again incorrect when it came to the height of the proposal;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Members considered application number 140150, an application for 1no. agricultural workers’ dwelling at land at South Carr, Brandywharf Road, Waddingham DN21 4SW.

There was no officer update to the item from the printed report.

The first speaker to the application was the applicant, Mrs Tutty.  She raised the following points:

·         The Environment agency had raised no concerns to the application, and there were no concerns from neighbours;

·         A health and safety representative felt the need for an on-site presence due to the machinery housed there;

·         Mr Tutty worked long hours on the farm and would benefit from being on site, rather than commuting for four miles, which was the current arrangement;

·         Theft was a huge worry and security was paramount.  Anyone watching the premises would know that it warranted further protection;

·         The applicant’s parents used to be a full-time part of the farm; however health and age issues have meant that their role was now diminished;

·         The applicant’s mother would require more care on an ongoing basis;

·         Mrs Tutty was taking a more active role in the farm, but also had childcare to think about.  Her child could not realistically be brought onto the farm whilst both parents were working;

·         Family run businesses were on the demise.  The legacy of this farm had been handed down over several generations.  Several self-employed contractors had been taken on to help with the farm, which demonstrated that it was performing well;

·         Lincolnshire was one of the top producers of food, and it was a key location for sugar beet.  There were a few tractor drivers on site, who would take time off; however Mr Tutty was largely unable to take any time off due to his ‘hands-on’ role on the farm;

·         In the future, the Tuttys’ son will work on the land and would take over the contracting business;

·         The importance of having the family on-site was stressed.

The final speaker to the application was Councillor Jeff Summers, ward member for Waddingham and Spital.  He raised the following points:

·         Farming contracts lasted for several years; this farm specialised in sugar beet.  This involved using very large and expensive machines, with a value of   well over £250,000;

·         Lincolnshire Police had admitted that they could not adequately police the rural countryside.  Businesses needed to be able to protect their assets;

·         The business had the need to employ local people;

·         The proposed site was in Flood Zone 3 (as defined by the Environment Agency as the highest risk of flooding); however this could be mitigated by a damp proofing course;

·         This would be a family house with office space, and nothing more;

·         Policy LP1 of the CLLP had been met as there was no adverse impact arising from the development.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would not restrict the development;

·         Policy LP5 of the CLLP was referenced; the application had arisen because of the success of a young entrepreneur.  The site employed 15 staff, and did not conflict with neighbouring land uses.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Members considered a planning application for removal of a prefabricated double garage and construction of a double garage with additional habitable space/games room above at 12 Ulster Road, Gainsborough DN21 2QX.

It was confirmed that this application would not be before Committee if the applicant had not been a staff member.

The application was moved and seconded, and following the vote planning permission was GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

2. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing A-101 Rev P1 dated July 2019. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policies LP1, LP17 and LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

The appeals were noted by the Committee.